the disingenuity of the gene locke campaign and others…

honestly, i’ve not been real excited by the mayoral election this year.  i believe either annise parker or gene locke are equally qualified.  either would be fine.  i don’t suspect that either of them will be as good as bill white has been, but that’s okay.  i think bill white was just ~exceptionally good~.  hard to top that.

but now… the houston chronicle has recently reported on anti-gay attacks forthcoming in the houston mayoral election:

A cluster of socially conservative Houstonians is planning a campaign to discourage voters from choosing City Controller Annise Parker in the December mayoral runoff because she is a lesbian, according to multiple ministers and conservatives involved in the effort.

The group is motivated by concerns about a “gay takeover” of City Hall, given that two other candidates in the five remaining City Council races are also openly gay, as well as national interest driven by the possibility that Houston could become the first major U.S. city to elect an openly gay woman.

Another primary concern is that Parker or other elected officials would seek to overturn a 2001 city charter amendment that prohibits the city from providing benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees.

i was hoping we’d not see much of this, but that was just wishful thinking on my part, i guess.  what’s troubling is…

Parker’s opponent, former City Attorney Gene Locke, strongly distanced himself from a previous anti-gay attack against her that ultimately proved to have been a hoax. But he has made recent efforts to court some of the staunch social conservatives who are either actively planning on attacking Parker’s sexuality or strongly considering it.

He appeared at the Pastor Council’s annual gala last Friday and was encouraged several times by State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, a featured speaker, to stand for conservative values.

Locke has also met with and sought the endorsement of Dr. Steven Hotze, a longtime local kingmaker in conservative politics and author of the Straight Slate in 1985, a coterie of eight City Council candidates he recruited who ran on an anti-gay platform.

now, i’ve previously commented on why i think dan patrick is a loon, but here’s some information on steven hotze.  (yeah, hotze is a rabid rightwing loon, as well.) 

a chronicle editorial states:

Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, told Olson, “The bottom line is that we didn’t pick the battle, she did when she made her agenda and sexual preference a central part of her campaign.”

That’s a lie.

While Parker has never made a secret of her sexuality, the campaign debate and agenda to date have been wholly defined by the issues facing the city and the comparative qualifications and experience of the candidates.

and from what i’ve seen, that’s pretty much true.  the debate *had* been centered almost entirely on the record of the candidates.  the rabid rightwingers are the ones making the race about annise parker’s sexuality, not annise parker.

to his credit, gene locke released this statement, in response to the houston chronicle’s original report:

“As I have previously stated, I reject any association with the style of campaigning that was the subject of an article in the Houston Chronicle today. We have serious issues to deal with in our city that requires us to work together as one Houston and I trust that Houstonians will choose a new mayor based on the issues that effect our lives every day and not to be swayed by divisive rhetoric.”

amen, mr locke!  except.. you forgot one little thing… while you are trying to distance yourself from the ~style of campaigning~, you were the one *courting* steven hotze and his ilk.  i see no explanation for that.  here’s what i think, mr. locke, while i *do not believe* that you are “anti-gay”, i think you are willing to toss your principles out the window in order to gain the “socially conservative” (ie. rabid rightwinger) vote.

as the chronicle says,

“The rhetoric of people like Steven Hotze and Dave Welch carries a high cost. Their support should not be purchased at the price of bigotry.”

it’s disingenuous to ~court~ hotze’s support while claiming you reject “divisive rhetoric”.

now a reporter, mary benton, assigned to cover the gene locke campaign, has posted concerning his statement and reveals the same level of disingenuity, not only by trying to push the “we courted the divisive vote, but we reject divisiveness” argument, but by then going on to state:

“Locke has never made any comment,  publicly or off the record,  to this reporter about Parker’ s sexuality.

Meanwhile,  2 On The Beat has heard directly from many in the gay and lesbian community that they view the election as an opportunity to make history.

Parker’s side is passionate about the campaign, and her supporters will show up to vote in the runoff,  and she is getting political contributions as a result.”

as i commented on her site,

“it would *appear* that ms. benton is trying to make the statement that people are only voting for annise parker ~because she’s gay~ and thus ms. parker isn’t running ~on the issues~.

how quickly we forget the “historic election” of president obama… http://2onthebeat.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/an-historic-night-senator-obama-elected-president/

is ms. benton honestly going to say that people only voted for obama because he was black and not based on the issues? and if so, did she happen to receive that talking point from the rabid rightwingers that gene locke has been meeting with?”

the 2008 presidential election saw *exactly* this type of racist rhetoric tossed around: black people were *only* voting for obama based on his being black, *not* based on the issues.  as if these things were even mutually exclusive.  (also, there is a wide gulf between voting for someone and voting against someone, based on race, gender, sexuality, etc.  it’s one thing for me to vote for someone ~because they’re like me~ in an election where ~someone like me~ has historically lacked access as a contender and an entirely *different* thing to vote against someone because you don’t believe they should have access as a contender.)

so color me surprised to be seeing this same reasoning used against annise parker supporters.  it’s out of the same rabid rightwinger playbook, as is the inference that annise parker’s campaign is ~all about her being gay~, rather than ~being about the issues~.

ms. benton appears to have taken offense, tho i suspect more because i hit the nail on the head (and she knows it) than by anything else:

No where in this post did I state that I think people are only voting for Parker because she’s gay.

I think you are trying to read too much into the post, perhaps, based on your own support of Parker?

My point was, and still is, that her gay supporters are passionate and are contributing votes, manpower and money.

That’s a dream for any candidate.

Maybe I should take issue with the fact that you don’t capitalize President Obama’s name and you use lower case in describing him as black?

Nah, that would be petty and irrelevant.

The fact is, SOME people WILL vote for Parker because they are gay, like her. Just as SOME people WILL vote for Locke because he is African American.
Just as SOME people will vote AGAINST Parker because she is gay, and they don’t approve of the lifestyle, and SOME people will vote AGAINST Locke because they don’t like the color of his skin.

As for rabid rightwingers? Who are those people. I ask the same question when someone asks if I am taking my cues from the liberal left.
Isn’t there enough name calling in this campaign?
As part of my job, I spend a lot of time talking to/interviewing people of all beliefs, lifestyles and political points of view.
I don’t have the luxury or desire to spend my time talking to the choir.

my capitalization (or lack thereof) aside, ms. benton both claims that *nowhere* did she state that people are only voting for parker because she’s gay, stating that i’m ~reading into~ her statement, and that people will do exactly that, vote for annise parker just because she’s gay.  this is what happens when your candidate does something like gene locke has done - you find yourself trying to justify things that can’t be justified and then being called on them.  that she claims to not know of which “rabid rightwingers” i speak is also disingenuous.  steven hotze is well known in houston for his extreme rightwing political stance.

it boils down to this: gene locke needs to own up to his actions, then reject the support of steven hotze and the hotze people.  *discrimination and bigotry* should be denounced and rejected always.

as for my capitalization, i don’t necessarily consider it “petty and irrelevant” to take offense.  if i were to never capitalize ‘black’, but always capitalize ‘white’... if i were to never capitalize ‘president obama’, but always capitalize ‘president bush’... that might be indicative of something.  in this case, it’s not, it’s just my writing style.  i rarely, if ever, capitalize anything and when i do, it’s because i’m forcing myself to adhere to how society says i’m supposed to write.

and anyways, all letters are equal down here in lowercase land.  if that offends anyone, my apologies.

| More